[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Benefits from computing physical IDE disk geometry?
Chuck Ebbert wrote:

>>If RAID1 can use the generic elevator then it should. I
>>guess it can't though.
> No, but it is feeding IO requests into the elevators of the
>block devices below it. For a given read, all it wants to do
>is pick one device to handle the work. If it could look into
>the queues maybe it could make better decisions.
OK right. As far as I can see, the algorithm in the RAID1 code
is used to select the best drive to read from? If that is the
case then I don't think it could make better decisions given
more knowledge. It really wants to know if the disk head is
close to request x however it is impossible to tell where the
disk head will be by the time request x is the next in line
for that disk, regardless if it can look at the low level
queues or not.

It seems to me that a better way to layer it would be to have
the complex (ie deadline/AS/CFQ/etc) scheduler handling all
requests into the raid block device, then having a raid
scheduler distributing to the disks, and having the disks
run no scheduler (fifo).

In practice the current scheme probably works OK, though I
wouldn't know due to lack of resources here :P

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.025 / U:2.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site